A veteran police officer who has served the people of South Wales for over 24 years has been found guilty of common assault after confronting a masked self-proclaimed ‘auditor’ who turned up at Merthyr Tydfil police station and refused to engage with police officers when he was asked about his intentions.
The conviction comes following an investigation that was led by the IOPC.
Over recent years, many YouTube ‘auditors’ have made a name for themselves by often trying to goad police officers and other public servants into a reaction whilst overtly filming police stations.
As well as filming police stations, many YouTube ‘auditors’ try and capture footage of police officers as they turn up to and leave work.
On 20th August 2021, a 16-year-old male – who cannot be named for legal reasons – turned up at Merthyr Tydfil police station with a camera.
The male ran a YouTube channel called ‘Auditing Wales’. The channel was deleted after the incident and before Inspector Dittoes appeared in court.
On the day of the incident, Inspector Dean Gittoes, who was not on duty at the time, was also at the police station as he was picking up some property.
Gittoes told the court that he had been working a night shift but had returned to Merthyr police station at about 14:00 hours to pick up a work phone for his wife.
The male had his hood up and was wearing a mask on the lower half of his face.
A court heard that the male refused to say who he was, despite being asked by officers several times to confirm his identity and why he was filming outside the police station.
Gittoes arrested the male under the Terrorism Act.
The court heard that Gittoes had previously been the subject of abusive online comments and had threats against his family after footage of him was posted on YouTube by another self-proclaimed ‘auditor.’
Police officers and police staff who appear in ‘auditors’ YouTube videos can request that the video be removed under YouTube’s ‘Protecting Your Identity’ terms and conditions.
Gittoes said previous incidents involving auditors filming outside the police station meant he “could not simply do nothing” as he felt the male filming was withholding information and concealing his identity.
Gittoes told the court: “I became suspicious in terms of the way he’s dressed and the way he appears to be making some sort of recording of the staff entrance.
He added that he “couldn’t just walk away and leave someone dressed as he was and acting like he was.”
The police inspector said that after arresting the male under the Terrorism Act, he used the “straight arm technique” to take hold of him before leading him into the police station.
He told the court the male was “verbally and passively resistant” but accepted that he had not tried to strike Gittoes or give him any need to strike him.
When asked if he felt he had grounds to believe a terrorist offence could have been committed under the Act at the time by his solicitor Christopher Rees, Gittoes replied. “Yes.”
Prosecutors played the court footage taken on the male’s phone, which, unbeknownst to Gittoes, was still recording both during and after the arrest.
In the footage, Inspector Gittoes was heard telling the male that several people had been filming outside the police station and that he was “a bit tired of it.”
After leading the male inside the station, he was also heard saying, “I’ve asked you politely – It’s too late” and calling him “a clever little internet freak.”
The court was told that weeks earlier, another self-proclaimed ‘auditor’ had been involved in a confrontation with Gittoes and filmed a YouTube video verbally abusing the officer.
Prosecutor Jason Howells said he arrested the male out of frustration that had been building up since the earlier incident in June, but Gittoes denied this was the case.
He admitted he was “frustrated” by police guidance on dealing with auditors and said he’d been “having threats on my family and my house” since a previous video was posted online.
Gittoes also told the court he had expressed doubt about guidance handed down by senior officers on how to deal with so-called auditors in recent months, saying he “didn’t feel the guidance was clear” and “was not adequate” for officers dealing with incidents involving people filming police buildings.
After watching several online auditing videos, Insp Gittoes said that he felt people were “creating a library” of official buildings that terrorists could easily target without having to carry out hostile reconnaissance themselves.
“It concerned me that if somebody wanted to attack a police station or a government building that those videos would assist them,” he told the court.
In his IOPC statement, Gittoes admitted pushing the male to the floor inside the station during the incident, which he said was to prevent him from escaping.
Asked by Mr Howells whether his conduct had been “aggressive” or “irate”, Gittoes denied this and said he had been “firm” in dealing with the male.
Gittoes, who has been a member of the force for 24 years and was promoted to inspector in 2019, has no previous convictions or any disciplinary action against him.
49-year-old Inspector Dean Gittoes was found guilty of common assault at Cwmbran Magistrates’ Court after a three-day trial.
He will be sentenced later this month.
IOPC Director for Wales, Catrin Evans, said:
“While there are occasions when the use of force is required, police officers are entrusted with the power to do so only if it is necessary, reasonable, and proportionate in the circumstances.
“Our investigation examined concerns about the actions of Inspector Gittoes, and the court has found having considered the evidence that the force used in manhandling a 16-year-old boy, who was offering no physical resistance, was excessive and went beyond what was necessary.”
A spokesperson for the IOPC added:
“Following our investigation, we concluded that Inspector Gittoes has a case to answer for gross misconduct for alleged breaches of the police standards of professional behaviour in respect of abuse of authority, and use of force.
“Now the trial is concluded we will be liaising with South Wales Police about next steps regarding any potential disciplinary proceedings.”
Before you go...
WE NEED YOUR HELP.Here at Emergency Services News, we aim to tell you stories that the mainstream media are not interested in reporting. Whilst the MSM love to berate and ridicule the emergency services, who is there to report on the realities of serving on the front line?
Emergency Services News is currently a loss-making entity. But our team of volunteers, all former emergency services personnel, do not do it for the money.
We do it because we are sick and tired of the mainstream media constantly trying to undermine the men and women who put their lives on the line to keep you and your family safe.
How many MSM journalists who speak ill of the emergency services have actually dared to don the uniform and risk their own lives to save the life of a complete stranger? If you would like to help back our mission of reporting on fact-based news, then please consider helping to support us financially.
You can support emergency services news from as little as £1. It only takes a minute. Every contribution, however big or small, is vital for our future.
Please help us to continue to highlight the life-saving work of the emergency services, NHS and armed forces by becoming a supporter.
If he is dismissed the entire force should go sick. This is just ridiculous the officers have one hand behind their back. Some people need to get real.
I agree.
Spot on Paul. The whole thing is a farce.
With his hood up and lower face covered, establishing age is rather difficult. From a security view point, Inspector Gittoes was quite correct to arrest the youth given that he had refused to give his details to an officer of the law.
One must wonder how the IOPC arrived at this conclusion. Why would anybody wish to become a copper these days is beyond me. On the one hand, they get assualted with no consequences for the aggressor and on the other, get hauled into court for just about any reason imaginable, and a few that are not.
We then wonder why the public is losing confidence in the police when they decide to go after Twitter trolls rather than serious, serial villains. If your job was on the line, which course would you take?
This is entirely the fault of the woke senior ranks. Bramshill needs to be closed, thw woke senior officers cleared out, the graduate entry scheme binned along with taking in those from other industries in a management role. Lord Trenchard tried establshing an officer corps within the police along the lines of the forces. It failed miserably and was abandoned. This new scheme will also fail, indeed it has already, and must also be scrapped.
Go back to Robert Peel’s original blueprint and adopt that. It makes sense, it worked and everybody understood it.
The IOPC must be idiots to even consider the actions of an inspector in this case as warranting a prosecution.The Inspector was doing his duty even though he wasn’t on duty. He should be commended as these video makers of police stations are acting as if they know the law better than the police do and try to goad them into confrontation.
The Inspector should be given a raise in salary and the 16-year-old boy made to pay all the court costs and have his camera confiscated.
Well done Inspector.
Unfortunately many of these people do ‘know the law’ better than many Police officers do, even lawyers have trouble keeping up at times, the Inspector however was entirely correct about the potential hostile recon and to arrest.
It seems as the arrest was in retaliation to the victim not providing his details to the perpetrator, there is no requirement to provide details to an officer unless a crime is/has been committed, an arrest is made or where required under legislation.
Concerning the statement, ”Police officers and police staff who appear in ‘auditors’ YouTube videos can request that the video be removed under YouTube’s ‘Protecting Your Identity’ terms and conditions.” This is futile as most videos that have been made by auditors have taken place in a public place and as such there is no expectation of privacy in a public place.
In general, any footage shot in a public place can be uploaded to YouTube without permission from anyone you may have captured on film. There are certain places within the public like restrooms, courtrooms, doctor’s offices, and other places where there is an expectation of privacy in which you cannot film subjects without their permission.
S44 was repealed due to abuse, if it carries on the way it is we risk losing another important tool.
For any officer wondering the law concerning recording this is the ruling https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-345/17
Kevin’s comment is spot on – particularly the last paragraph.
Whatever do the IOPC think – or are they completely PC and Woke?, and, therefore, unsuitable to judge cases brought before them.
If this continues – we will be granting those who wish to dispense with our redoubtable Police Force – shame on them.
The auditor didn’t break the law and there was no justification for his arrest. He walked into a public area with a camera and he’s legally entitled to do that. The footage he shot revealed nothing that can’t be found via Google Streetview or Maps so the terrorism claim was total BS. Also, the inspector called him an “internet freak” and admitted to watching other auditor videos so he knew this was nothing to do with terrorism. The footage also revealed that the young man wasn’t goading the officer either, they only interacted for 10 seconds before Gittoes assaulted him.
Kevan Chippindall-Higgin wrote “Inspector Gittoes was quite correct to arrest the youth given that he had refused to give his details to an officer of the law.”
The inspector performed a stop and account and the young man was under no obligation to provide answers to any of his questions. Gittoes lost his cool, assaulted a boy and detained him for 7 hours on BS suspicions that none of his colleagues supported. Even the terrorism expert that Gittoes called in for support told him the incident had nothing to do with terrorism.
If any officers reading this think it’s okay to arrest someone because they refuse to give you answers during a stop and account then maybe you should consider a different career or at least some refresher training.
Another pathetic WOKE comment.